March 26, 2003

Features

Section Editor: Sven Bellamy

the other press

 

The UN:
Between Ira
and a Hard
Place

Tom Mellish
OP Hack

opfeatures@netscape.net

 

“Some of my neighbours say, if I’ve got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that’s simply ridiculous. The police will say that
they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.” Terry Jones, Sunday January 26, 2003, The Observer

The ideals of the UN are a great hope—a great ideal to
look toward. But just as the League of Nations ceased its
activities after failing to prevent the Second World War,
so too might the UN with all the infighting.

Is the war on Iraq “legal”?

The forerunner of the United Nations was the League
of Nations, an organization conceived during the First
World War. After the League's failure to prevent World
War II, all assets of the League of Nations were trans-
ferred over to its new persona.

The United Nations has had its share of scandals, such
as Kurt Waldheim, the Nazi, appointed Secretary-
General of the United Nations for a five-year term begin-
ning on January 1, 1972.

It has been observed that rogue nations can get posi-
tions of authority. Libya is this year’s chair of the UN
Human Rights Commission, and Qadaffi has tried to get
on the security council in the past. Syria, a country with
links to terrorist groups, had a month-long rotation as
the UN Security Council chair last June. Iraq will have a
month-long rotation this May as chair of the United
Nations’ disarmament conference, purely based on alpha-
betical order. The other chair of said conference will be
Iran, which is hard at work on a nuclear arsenal. Some
question the validity of places like Angola, Cameroon,
and Guinea getting to vote on resolutions involving
Iraq—and the authority of permanent members with
veto power.

In September 2000 world leaders met at UN head-
quarters to arrange a vision for the future. The resulting
“Millennium Declaration” applies the purposes and prin-
ciples of the UN Charter to a new world within a speci-
fied time frame. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the cur-
rent US manifesto, Rebuilding Americas Defences:
Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was
being drawn up. It was written for Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld, and others in the posse.

Do the two spectacles work against themselves?

The goals of the United Nations Millennium
Declaration cover the areas of peace, security, and disar-
mament; development; protecting the environment;
human rights, democracy, and good government; pro-
tecting the vulnerable; meeting the special needs of
Africa; and strengthening the UN.

In the US manifesto, advanced industrial nations will
be discouraged from challenging American leadership or
even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. The US
is envisioned as a “global constabulary,” could not have
been pursued without a “Pearl Harbor,” an event such as
September 11th that would override article two-four of
the UN Charter, which prohibits any nation from using
force against another. The article, which castrated Article
2-4, was Article 50-1, which allows force in self-defence.
The US could also challenge the Security Council with
Chapter seven which authorizes the use of force to pro-
tect international peace and security.

In summary, Resolution 1441, passed unanimously last
fall by the Security Council, required Iraq to disarm fully
and unconditionally or face “serious consequences.” In
material breach of council resolutions (relating to Iraq’s
1990 invasion of Kuwait), Baghdad was given thirty days
to give complete and accurate declaration of all aspects of
its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs

‘and ballistic missiles systems, as well as information on

other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs that are
supposed to be for civilian purposes.

Weapons inspectors were sent, and extensions drew out
the whole affair.

France and Russia said that they would veto a proposed
draft resolution authorization of the use of force against
a March 17 deadline for full compliance by Iraq. The
French president, echoing a majority sentiment, said that
Iraq was still “a dangerous country” and must be dis-
armed, but the war remains the ultimate resort and the
worst of solutions.

Then the United States, Britain, and Spain backed out
of the vote...there would be no vote on a draft resolu-
tion. They would go it alone.

Currently, rival factions have blamed each other for the
failure to bridge the gap.

To quote Colin Powell, “The UN is an important insti-
tution...but clearly this is a test that in my judgment the
Security Council did not meet.”

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that any

 

© page 12